Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 731

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

age

73

50.69 ± 12.64 (25 - 74)

50.31 ± 13.37 (25 - 74)

51.07 ± 12.01 (31 - 72)

0.800

gender

73

0.665

f

51 (70%)

25 (68%)

26 (72%)

m

22 (30%)

12 (32%)

10 (28%)

occupation

73

0.909

day_training

2 (2.7%)

2 (5.4%)

0 (0%)

full_time

7 (9.6%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

homemaker

6 (8.2%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.3%)

other

2 (2.7%)

0 (0%)

2 (5.6%)

part_time

14 (19%)

7 (19%)

7 (19%)

retired

15 (21%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

self_employ

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.8%)

student

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

t_and_e

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.8%)

unemploy

22 (30%)

12 (32%)

10 (28%)

marital

73

0.814

cohabitation

1 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.8%)

divore

9 (12%)

6 (16%)

3 (8.3%)

married

15 (21%)

7 (19%)

8 (22%)

none

42 (58%)

21 (57%)

21 (58%)

seperation

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.8%)

widow

3 (4.1%)

1 (2.7%)

2 (5.6%)

edu

73

0.979

bachelor

21 (29%)

9 (24%)

12 (33%)

diploma

13 (18%)

8 (22%)

5 (14%)

hd_ad

3 (4.1%)

2 (5.4%)

1 (2.8%)

postgraduate

6 (8.2%)

3 (8.1%)

3 (8.3%)

primary

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.3%)

secondary_1_3

8 (11%)

4 (11%)

4 (11%)

secondary_4_5

15 (21%)

8 (22%)

7 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.8%)

fam_income

73

0.928

10001_12000

4 (5.5%)

1 (2.7%)

3 (8.3%)

12001_14000

4 (5.5%)

2 (5.4%)

2 (5.6%)

14001_16000

5 (6.8%)

2 (5.4%)

3 (8.3%)

16001_18000

2 (2.7%)

1 (2.7%)

1 (2.8%)

18001_20000

4 (5.5%)

3 (8.1%)

1 (2.8%)

20001_above

11 (15%)

6 (16%)

5 (14%)

2001_4000

10 (14%)

7 (19%)

3 (8.3%)

4001_6000

10 (14%)

4 (11%)

6 (17%)

6001_8000

7 (9.6%)

4 (11%)

3 (8.3%)

8001_10000

7 (9.6%)

3 (8.1%)

4 (11%)

below_2000

9 (12%)

4 (11%)

5 (14%)

medication

73

63 (86%)

33 (89%)

30 (83%)

0.515

onset_duration

73

15.26 ± 11.49 (0 - 56)

16.67 ± 12.76 (1 - 56)

13.80 ± 9.99 (0 - 35)

0.289

onset_age

73

35.43 ± 14.10 (14 - 64)

33.64 ± 13.39 (14 - 58)

37.26 ± 14.76 (15 - 64)

0.275

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 731

control, N = 371

treatment, N = 361

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

73

3.12 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.11 ± 1.26 (1 - 5)

3.14 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

0.915

recovery_stage_b

73

17.99 ± 2.61 (9 - 23)

17.95 ± 2.66 (9 - 23)

18.03 ± 2.60 (13 - 23)

0.895

ras_confidence

73

30.41 ± 4.79 (19 - 43)

29.89 ± 4.19 (19 - 40)

30.94 ± 5.34 (20 - 43)

0.351

ras_willingness

73

12.10 ± 1.94 (7 - 15)

11.92 ± 1.85 (9 - 15)

12.28 ± 2.05 (7 - 15)

0.434

ras_goal

73

17.51 ± 2.97 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.93 (12 - 24)

17.53 ± 3.06 (12 - 24)

0.953

ras_reliance

73

13.21 ± 2.81 (8 - 20)

12.97 ± 2.58 (8 - 18)

13.44 ± 3.05 (8 - 20)

0.477

ras_domination

73

9.99 ± 2.31 (3 - 15)

10.51 ± 2.06 (6 - 15)

9.44 ± 2.45 (3 - 14)

0.048

symptom

73

30.25 ± 9.82 (14 - 56)

31.24 ± 9.60 (14 - 52)

29.22 ± 10.07 (15 - 56)

0.383

slof_work

73

22.71 ± 4.88 (10 - 30)

22.68 ± 4.44 (15 - 30)

22.75 ± 5.37 (10 - 30)

0.949

slof_relationship

73

25.73 ± 5.99 (11 - 35)

25.51 ± 6.17 (13 - 35)

25.94 ± 5.88 (11 - 35)

0.761

satisfaction

73

20.66 ± 6.81 (5 - 32)

19.22 ± 6.44 (5 - 29)

22.14 ± 6.94 (5 - 32)

0.066

mhc_emotional

73

11.15 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

10.70 ± 3.41 (3 - 17)

11.61 ± 4.24 (4 - 18)

0.316

mhc_social

73

14.96 ± 5.44 (6 - 30)

15.16 ± 5.48 (7 - 30)

14.75 ± 5.47 (6 - 26)

0.749

mhc_psychological

73

22.19 ± 6.07 (6 - 36)

21.76 ± 5.69 (10 - 36)

22.64 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

0.538

resilisnce

73

16.58 ± 4.55 (6 - 27)

16.32 ± 4.38 (6 - 24)

16.83 ± 4.75 (7 - 27)

0.636

social_provision

73

13.66 ± 2.93 (5 - 20)

13.30 ± 2.49 (8 - 20)

14.03 ± 3.32 (5 - 20)

0.290

els_value_living

73

17.26 ± 2.93 (5 - 25)

16.65 ± 2.34 (12 - 22)

17.89 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)

0.070

els_life_fulfill

73

12.77 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

11.81 ± 3.04 (5 - 17)

13.75 ± 3.32 (4 - 20)

0.011

els

73

30.03 ± 5.60 (9 - 45)

28.46 ± 4.44 (20 - 36)

31.64 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)

0.014

social_connect

73

27.15 ± 9.52 (8 - 48)

27.95 ± 8.31 (8 - 45)

26.33 ± 10.68 (8 - 48)

0.473

shs_agency

73

14.44 ± 4.92 (3 - 24)

13.84 ± 4.52 (3 - 21)

15.06 ± 5.29 (3 - 24)

0.293

shs_pathway

73

16.55 ± 3.96 (4 - 24)

16.11 ± 3.81 (8 - 24)

17.00 ± 4.11 (4 - 23)

0.339

shs

73

30.99 ± 8.41 (7 - 47)

29.95 ± 7.97 (13 - 45)

32.06 ± 8.83 (7 - 47)

0.287

esteem

73

12.67 ± 1.50 (10 - 18)

12.86 ± 1.55 (10 - 18)

12.47 ± 1.44 (10 - 16)

0.267

mlq_search

73

14.93 ± 3.31 (3 - 21)

14.84 ± 3.09 (6 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.809

mlq_presence

73

13.47 ± 4.11 (3 - 21)

13.41 ± 3.50 (5 - 20)

13.53 ± 4.70 (3 - 21)

0.900

mlq

73

28.40 ± 6.60 (6 - 42)

28.24 ± 5.79 (12 - 40)

28.56 ± 7.42 (6 - 42)

0.841

empower

73

19.49 ± 4.09 (6 - 28)

19.08 ± 3.71 (11 - 24)

19.92 ± 4.46 (6 - 28)

0.387

ismi_resistance

73

14.60 ± 2.64 (5 - 20)

14.32 ± 2.21 (11 - 19)

14.89 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)

0.365

ismi_discrimation

73

11.30 ± 3.19 (5 - 19)

12.22 ± 2.79 (5 - 18)

10.36 ± 3.33 (5 - 19)

0.012

sss_affective

73

9.95 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

10.43 ± 3.44 (3 - 18)

9.44 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)

0.270

sss_behavior

73

9.60 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

10.27 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

8.92 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)

0.144

sss_cognitive

73

8.30 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

8.59 ± 4.15 (3 - 18)

8.00 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

0.524

sss

73

27.85 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)

29.30 ± 10.41 (9 - 54)

26.36 ± 11.23 (9 - 54)

0.250

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.11

0.199

2.72, 3.50

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.031

0.284

-0.525, 0.587

0.914

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.161

0.288

-0.403, 0.725

0.578

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.185

0.411

-0.622, 0.991

0.655

Pseudo R square

0.013

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.440

17.1, 18.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.082

0.626

-1.15, 1.31

0.896

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.384

0.603

-1.56, 0.798

0.527

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.912

0.863

-0.779, 2.60

0.295

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.9

0.826

28.3, 31.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

1.176

-1.25, 3.36

0.373

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.316

0.817

-1.29, 1.92

0.700

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.301

1.170

-1.99, 2.59

0.798

Pseudo R square

0.015

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.9

0.326

11.3, 12.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.359

0.464

-0.551, 1.27

0.442

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.630

0.320

-1.26, -0.003

0.055

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.468

0.458

-0.429, 1.37

0.312

Pseudo R square

0.029

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.513

16.5, 18.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.041

0.730

-1.39, 1.47

0.955

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.913

0.550

-1.99, 0.166

0.104

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.53

0.788

-0.017, 3.07

0.059

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.450

12.1, 13.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.471

0.641

-0.784, 1.73

0.464

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.453

0.407

-0.345, 1.25

0.272

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.615

0.583

-0.528, 1.76

0.297

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.5

0.369

9.79, 11.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.07

0.525

-2.10, -0.040

0.045

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.633

0.470

-1.55, 0.289

0.185

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.44

0.673

0.117, 2.76

0.038

Pseudo R square

0.038

symptom

(Intercept)

31.2

1.613

28.1, 34.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.02

2.298

-6.52, 2.48

0.382

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.060

1.183

-2.26, 2.38

0.960

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.700

1.694

-4.02, 2.62

0.681

Pseudo R square

0.014

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.7

0.809

21.1, 24.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.074

1.153

-2.18, 2.33

0.949

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.723

0.618

-1.93, 0.489

0.249

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.568

0.886

-2.30, 1.17

0.525

Pseudo R square

0.010

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.5

0.979

23.6, 27.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.431

1.393

-2.30, 3.16

0.758

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.05

0.898

-2.81, 0.706

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.648

1.286

-1.87, 3.17

0.617

Pseudo R square

0.007

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.2

1.139

17.0, 21.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.92

1.622

-0.256, 6.10

0.075

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.748

1.181

-1.57, 3.06

0.529

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.20

1.691

-4.51, 2.11

0.482

Pseudo R square

0.034

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.626

9.48, 11.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.908

0.891

-0.837, 2.65

0.311

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.484

0.541

-0.576, 1.54

0.376

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.15

0.775

-2.67, 0.372

0.147

Pseudo R square

0.010

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.2

0.928

13.3, 17.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.412

1.322

-3.00, 2.18

0.756

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

0.903

-0.687, 2.85

0.237

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.59

1.293

-4.12, 0.946

0.226

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

1.048

19.7, 23.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.882

1.493

-2.04, 3.81

0.556

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.643

1.022

-1.36, 2.65

0.532

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.66

1.463

-4.53, 1.21

0.263

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.715

14.9, 17.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.509

1.018

-1.49, 2.50

0.618

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.160

0.719

-1.25, 1.57

0.825

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.390

1.030

-1.63, 2.41

0.707

Pseudo R square

0.007

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.493

12.3, 14.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.730

0.702

-0.645, 2.11

0.301

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.937

0.555

-2.02, 0.150

0.098

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.913

0.794

-0.643, 2.47

0.256

Pseudo R square

0.041

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.479

15.7, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.24

0.682

-0.097, 2.58

0.073

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.276

0.449

-0.605, 1.16

0.543

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.196

0.643

-1.46, 1.06

0.762

Pseudo R square

0.040

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.8

0.507

10.8, 12.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.94

0.723

0.523, 3.36

0.009

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.917

0.487

-0.039, 1.87

0.067

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.903

0.698

-2.27, 0.465

0.203

Pseudo R square

0.074

els

(Intercept)

28.5

0.886

26.7, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.18

1.262

0.706, 5.65

0.014

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.17

0.770

-0.343, 2.67

0.137

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

1.103

-3.23, 1.09

0.339

Pseudo R square

0.069

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.9

1.567

24.9, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.61

2.232

-5.99, 2.76

0.472

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.759

1.145

-1.48, 3.00

0.511

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.945

1.639

-4.16, 2.27

0.567

Pseudo R square

0.011

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.8

0.811

12.2, 15.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.22

1.154

-1.04, 3.48

0.295

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.290

0.772

-1.22, 1.80

0.709

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.455

1.105

-1.71, 2.62

0.683

Pseudo R square

0.022

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.1

0.648

14.8, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.892

0.923

-0.918, 2.70

0.337

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.372

0.590

-0.784, 1.53

0.532

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.390

0.844

-2.05, 1.27

0.647

Pseudo R square

0.010

shs

(Intercept)

29.9

1.375

27.3, 32.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.11

1.959

-1.73, 5.95

0.285

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.662

1.233

-1.75, 3.08

0.594

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.074

1.766

-3.39, 3.54

0.967

Pseudo R square

0.018

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.232

12.4, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.393

0.330

-1.04, 0.254

0.237

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.153

0.350

-0.533, 0.839

0.664

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.179

0.501

-0.803, 1.16

0.723

Pseudo R square

0.021

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.8

0.554

13.8, 15.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.190

0.789

-1.36, 1.74

0.810

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.395

0.662

-1.69, 0.904

0.554

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.360

0.948

-1.50, 2.22

0.706

Pseudo R square

0.004

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.664

12.1, 14.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.122

0.945

-1.73, 1.97

0.897

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.082

0.733

-1.52, 1.35

0.911

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.208

1.050

-1.85, 2.27

0.844

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.104

26.1, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.312

1.572

-2.77, 3.39

0.843

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.477

1.253

-2.93, 1.98

0.705

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.561

1.795

-2.96, 4.08

0.756

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.1

0.658

17.8, 20.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.836

0.937

-1.00, 2.67

0.375

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.252

0.581

-1.39, 0.886

0.667

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.414

0.831

-2.04, 1.22

0.621

Pseudo R square

0.011

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.3

0.411

13.5, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.565

0.586

-0.584, 1.71

0.338

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.174

0.550

-0.904, 1.25

0.753

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.305

0.787

-1.85, 1.24

0.700

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.2

0.515

11.2, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.86

0.733

-3.29, -0.419

0.013

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.509

0.500

-1.49, 0.470

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.932

0.715

-0.470, 2.33

0.200

Pseudo R square

0.061

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.606

9.25, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.988

0.862

-2.68, 0.702

0.255

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.226

0.504

-0.762, 1.21

0.656

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.09

0.722

-2.51, 0.324

0.138

Pseudo R square

0.040

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.3

0.619

9.06, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.35

0.881

-3.08, 0.373

0.128

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.249

0.616

-1.46, 0.959

0.688

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.480

0.883

-2.21, 1.25

0.590

Pseudo R square

0.044

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.59

0.638

7.34, 9.84

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.595

0.908

-2.37, 1.19

0.515

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.03

0.508

0.031, 2.02

0.050

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.83

0.728

-3.25, -0.399

0.016

Pseudo R square

0.037

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

1.730

25.9, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-2.94

2.464

-7.77, 1.89

0.237

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.08

1.300

-1.47, 3.62

0.413

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.40

1.862

-7.05, 0.250

0.075

Pseudo R square

0.043

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.11 (95% CI [2.72, 3.50], t(106) = 15.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.59], t(106) = 0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.72], t(106) = 0.56, p = 0.576; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.99], t(106) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.82])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.95 (95% CI [17.08, 18.81], t(106) = 40.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.15, 1.31], t(106) = 0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.80], t(106) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.60], t(106) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.98])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.89 (95% CI [28.27, 31.51], t(106) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.25, 3.36], t(106) = 0.89, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.92], t(106) = 0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(106) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.92 (95% CI [11.28, 12.56], t(106) = 36.54, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.27], t(106) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.26, -3.34e-03], t(106) = -1.97, p = 0.049; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.63, -1.67e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.43, 1.37], t(106) = 1.02, p = 0.307; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.48, 18.49], t(106) = 34.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.39, 1.47], t(106) = 0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.17], t(106) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.53, 95% CI [-0.02, 3.07], t(106) = 1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-5.49e-03, 0.97])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.97 (95% CI [12.09, 13.85], t(106) = 28.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.73], t(106) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.25], t(106) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.76], t(106) = 1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.62])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.51 (95% CI [9.79, 11.24], t(106) = 28.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.10, -0.04], t(106) = -2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.93, -0.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.29], t(106) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [0.12, 2.76], t(106) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.24 (95% CI [28.08, 34.41], t(106) = 19.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.02, 95% CI [-6.52, 2.48], t(106) = -0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.26, 2.38], t(106) = 0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = 6.04e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-4.02, 2.62], t(106) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.68 (95% CI [21.09, 24.26], t(106) = 28.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.33], t(106) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.93, 0.49], t(106) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-2.30, 1.17], t(106) = -0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.24])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.51 (95% CI [23.60, 27.43], t(106) = 26.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-2.30, 3.16], t(106) = 0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.81, 0.71], t(106) = -1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.87, 3.17], t(106) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.22 (95% CI [16.98, 21.45], t(106) = 16.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.92, 95% CI [-0.26, 6.10], t(106) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.87])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.06], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-4.51, 2.11], t(106) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.70 (95% CI [9.48, 11.93], t(106) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.84, 2.65], t(106) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.54], t(106) = 0.90, p = 0.371; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.42])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.37], t(106) = -1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.34, 16.98], t(106) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-3.00, 2.18], t(106) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.85], t(106) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-4.12, 0.95], t(106) = -1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.59e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.76 (95% CI [19.70, 23.81], t(106) = 20.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.81], t(106) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.65], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.529; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-4.53, 1.21], t(106) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.32 (95% CI [14.92, 17.73], t(106) = 22.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.50], t(106) = 0.50, p = 0.617; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.58])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.57], t(106) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-1.63, 2.41], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.30 (95% CI [12.33, 14.26], t(106) = 26.98, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.65, 2.11], t(106) = 1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.15], t(106) = -1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.47], t(106) = 1.15, p = 0.250; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.65 (95% CI [15.71, 17.59], t(106) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-0.10, 2.58], t(106) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.86])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.16], t(106) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.06], t(106) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.81 (95% CI [10.82, 12.81], t(106) = 23.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [0.52, 3.36], t(106) = 2.68, p = 0.007; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.16, 1.05])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.87], t(106) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.47], t(106) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.46 (95% CI [26.72, 30.20], t(106) = 32.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.18, 95% CI [0.71, 5.65], t(106) = 2.52, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.13, 1.01])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.67], t(106) = 1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-3.23, 1.09], t(106) = -0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.95 (95% CI [24.87, 31.02], t(106) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.61, 95% CI [-5.99, 2.76], t(106) = -0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.28])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.48, 3.00], t(106) = 0.66, p = 0.507; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.95, 95% CI [-4.16, 2.27], t(106) = -0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.25, 15.43], t(106) = 17.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-1.04, 3.48], t(106) = 1.05, p = 0.291; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.22, 1.80], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.707; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.71, 2.62], t(106) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.11 (95% CI [14.84, 17.38], t(106) = 24.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.92, 2.70], t(106) = 0.97, p = 0.334; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.53], t(106) = 0.63, p = 0.528; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.27], t(106) = -0.46, p = 0.644; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.95 (95% CI [27.25, 32.64], t(106) = 21.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.11, 95% CI [-1.73, 5.95], t(106) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.75, 3.08], t(106) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-3.39, 3.54], t(106) = 0.04, p = 0.967; Std. beta = 8.90e-03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.27) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.86 (95% CI [12.41, 13.32], t(106) = 55.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.25], t(106) = -1.19, p = 0.234; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.84], t(106) = 0.44, p = 0.662; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.60])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.16], t(106) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.75, 15.92], t(106) = 26.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.74], t(106) = 0.24, p = 0.810; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.90], t(106) = -0.60, p = 0.551; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.22], t(106) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.66])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.44e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.41 (95% CI [12.10, 14.71], t(106) = 20.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.97], t(106) = 0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.35], t(106) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.27], t(106) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.24 (95% CI [26.08, 30.41], t(106) = 25.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-2.77, 3.39], t(106) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.93, 1.98], t(106) = -0.38, p = 0.703; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-2.96, 4.08], t(106) = 0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.08 (95% CI [17.79, 20.37], t(106) = 29.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-1.00, 2.67], t(106) = 0.89, p = 0.372; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.89], t(106) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.22])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.22], t(106) = -0.50, p = 0.619; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.32 (95% CI [13.52, 15.13], t(106) = 34.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.71], t(106) = 0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.69])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(106) = 0.32, p = 0.752; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.50])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.24], t(106) = -0.39, p = 0.698; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.22 (95% CI [11.21, 13.22], t(106) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.86, 95% CI [-3.29, -0.42], t(106) = -2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.03, -0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.47], t(106) = -1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.47, 2.33], t(106) = 1.30, p = 0.193; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.73])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.43 (95% CI [9.25, 11.62], t(106) = 17.22, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-2.68, 0.70], t(106) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.21], t(106) = 0.45, p = 0.654; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.32], t(106) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.27 (95% CI [9.06, 11.48], t(106) = 16.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-3.08, 0.37], t(106) = -1.54, p = 0.124; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.96], t(106) = -0.40, p = 0.686; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.21, 1.25], t(106) = -0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.59 (95% CI [7.34, 9.84], t(106) = 13.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-2.37, 1.19], t(106) = -0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.03, 2.02], t(106) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [8.00e-03, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.83, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.40], t(106) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-0.84, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.30 (95% CI [25.91, 32.69], t(106) = 16.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.94, 95% CI [-7.77, 1.89], t(106) = -1.19, p = 0.233; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.18])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.62], t(106) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.40, 95% CI [-7.05, 0.25], t(106) = -1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

359.919

368.075

-176.960

353.919

recovery_stage_a

random

6

364.077

380.388

-176.038

352.077

1.843

3

0.606

recovery_stage_b

null

3

534.462

542.618

-264.231

528.462

recovery_stage_b

random

6

538.867

555.178

-263.434

526.867

1.595

3

0.661

ras_confidence

null

3

654.955

663.111

-324.478

648.955

ras_confidence

random

6

659.197

675.508

-323.598

647.197

1.759

3

0.624

ras_willingness

null

3

449.736

457.891

-221.868

443.736

ras_willingness

random

6

450.465

466.776

-219.233

438.465

5.271

3

0.153

ras_goal

null

3

556.472

564.628

-275.236

550.472

ras_goal

random

6

557.990

574.301

-272.995

545.990

4.483

3

0.214

ras_reliance

null

3

519.528

527.684

-256.764

513.528

ras_reliance

random

6

516.812

533.123

-252.406

504.812

8.716

3

0.033

ras_domination

null

3

495.579

503.735

-244.790

489.579

ras_domination

random

6

495.289

511.600

-241.645

483.289

6.290

3

0.098

symptom

null

3

782.726

790.882

-388.363

776.726

symptom

random

6

787.433

803.744

-387.717

775.433

1.293

3

0.731

slof_work

null

3

635.402

643.558

-314.701

629.402

slof_work

random

6

635.993

652.304

-311.996

623.993

5.410

3

0.144

slof_relationship

null

3

687.662

695.818

-340.831

681.662

slof_relationship

random

6

691.855

708.166

-339.927

679.855

1.807

3

0.613

satisfaction

null

3

731.785

739.941

-362.893

725.785

satisfaction

random

6

734.421

750.732

-361.211

722.421

3.364

3

0.339

mhc_emotional

null

3

584.086

592.242

-289.043

578.086

mhc_emotional

random

6

587.345

603.656

-287.673

575.345

2.741

3

0.433

mhc_social

null

3

680.399

688.555

-337.200

674.399

mhc_social

random

6

684.139

700.450

-336.069

672.139

2.261

3

0.520

mhc_psychological

null

3

707.018

715.173

-350.509

701.018

mhc_psychological

random

6

711.559

727.870

-349.779

699.559

1.459

3

0.692

resilisnce

null

3

623.043

631.199

-308.522

617.043

resilisnce

random

6

627.996

644.307

-307.998

615.996

1.047

3

0.790

social_provision

null

3

551.544

559.699

-272.772

545.544

social_provision

random

6

552.353

568.664

-270.177

540.353

5.190

3

0.158

els_value_living

null

3

531.070

539.226

-262.535

525.070

els_value_living

random

6

533.369

549.680

-260.684

521.369

3.702

3

0.296

els_life_fulfill

null

3

551.319

559.474

-272.659

545.319

els_life_fulfill

random

6

548.008

564.319

-268.004

536.008

9.310

3

0.025

els

null

3

667.521

675.676

-330.760

661.521

els

random

6

665.698

682.009

-326.849

653.698

7.823

3

0.050

social_connect

null

3

775.891

784.047

-384.946

769.891

social_connect

random

6

780.649

796.960

-384.324

768.649

1.243

3

0.743

shs_agency

null

3

648.882

657.038

-321.441

642.882

shs_agency

random

6

652.323

668.634

-320.161

640.323

2.560

3

0.465

shs_pathway

null

3

594.223

602.379

-294.112

588.223

shs_pathway

random

6

599.024

615.335

-293.512

587.024

1.199

3

0.753

shs

null

3

762.375

770.531

-378.188

756.375

shs

random

6

766.436

782.747

-377.218

754.436

1.939

3

0.585

esteem

null

3

396.436

404.592

-195.218

390.436

esteem

random

6

399.989

416.300

-193.995

387.989

2.447

3

0.485

mlq_search

null

3

577.032

585.188

-285.516

571.032

mlq_search

random

6

582.490

598.801

-285.245

570.490

0.542

3

0.910

mlq_presence

null

3

611.830

619.986

-302.915

605.830

mlq_presence

random

6

617.742

634.053

-302.871

605.742

0.088

3

0.993

mlq

null

3

727.820

735.975

-360.910

721.820

mlq

random

6

733.554

749.865

-360.777

721.554

0.266

3

0.966

empower

null

3

596.189

604.345

-295.095

590.189

empower

random

6

600.058

616.369

-294.029

588.058

2.131

3

0.546

ismi_resistance

null

3

517.504

525.660

-255.752

511.504

ismi_resistance

random

6

522.544

538.855

-255.272

510.544

0.960

3

0.811

ismi_discrimation

null

3

552.690

560.845

-273.345

546.690

ismi_discrimation

random

6

551.859

568.170

-269.929

539.859

6.831

3

0.077

sss_affective

null

3

576.784

584.940

-285.392

570.784

sss_affective

random

6

577.339

593.650

-282.670

565.339

5.445

3

0.142

sss_behavior

null

3

593.639

601.795

-293.820

587.639

sss_behavior

random

6

594.989

611.300

-291.494

582.989

4.651

3

0.199

sss_cognitive

null

3

587.331

595.487

-290.666

581.331

sss_cognitive

random

6

585.709

602.020

-286.854

573.709

7.623

3

0.054

sss

null

3

805.301

813.456

-399.650

799.301

sss

random

6

804.949

821.260

-396.474

792.949

6.352

3

0.096

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

37

3.11 ± 1.21

36

3.14 ± 1.21

0.914

-0.031

recovery_stage_a

2nd

20

3.27 ± 1.19

-0.163

19

3.48 ± 1.19

-0.350

0.573

-0.218

recovery_stage_b

1st

37

17.95 ± 2.68

36

18.03 ± 2.68

0.896

-0.040

recovery_stage_b

2nd

20

17.56 ± 2.59

0.187

19

18.56 ± 2.59

-0.258

0.234

-0.485

ras_confidence

1st

37

29.89 ± 5.02

36

30.94 ± 5.02

0.373

-0.394

ras_confidence

2nd

20

30.21 ± 4.41

-0.118

19

31.56 ± 4.39

-0.231

0.339

-0.507

ras_willingness

1st

37

11.92 ± 1.98

36

12.28 ± 1.98

0.442

-0.343

ras_willingness

2nd

20

11.29 ± 1.74

0.603

19

12.12 ± 1.73

0.155

0.139

-0.791

ras_goal

1st

37

17.49 ± 3.12

36

17.53 ± 3.12

0.955

-0.023

ras_goal

2nd

20

16.57 ± 2.80

0.504

19

18.14 ± 2.79

-0.339

0.083

-0.866

ras_reliance

1st

37

12.97 ± 2.74

36

13.44 ± 2.74

0.464

-0.356

ras_reliance

2nd

20

13.43 ± 2.34

-0.342

19

14.51 ± 2.33

-0.807

0.150

-0.821

ras_domination

1st

37

10.51 ± 2.24

36

9.44 ± 2.24

0.045

0.677

ras_domination

2nd

20

9.88 ± 2.12

0.401

19

10.25 ± 2.12

-0.509

0.590

-0.233

symptom

1st

37

31.24 ± 9.81

36

29.22 ± 9.81

0.382

0.531

symptom

2nd

20

31.30 ± 8.03

-0.016

19

28.58 ± 7.98

0.168

0.291

0.715

slof_work

1st

37

22.68 ± 4.92

36

22.75 ± 4.92

0.949

-0.037

slof_work

2nd

20

21.95 ± 4.06

0.363

19

21.46 ± 4.04

0.648

0.704

0.248

slof_relationship

1st

37

25.51 ± 5.95

36

25.94 ± 5.95

0.758

-0.147

slof_relationship

2nd

20

24.46 ± 5.12

0.361

19

25.54 ± 5.09

0.139

0.511

-0.369

satisfaction

1st

37

19.22 ± 6.93

36

22.14 ± 6.93

0.075

-0.754

satisfaction

2nd

20

19.96 ± 6.15

-0.193

19

21.69 ± 6.13

0.116

0.383

-0.445

mhc_emotional

1st

37

10.70 ± 3.80

36

11.61 ± 3.80

0.311

-0.518

mhc_emotional

2nd

20

11.19 ± 3.22

-0.276

19

10.95 ± 3.21

0.377

0.818

0.136

mhc_social

1st

37

15.16 ± 5.65

36

14.75 ± 5.65

0.756

0.140

mhc_social

2nd

20

16.25 ± 4.93

-0.367

19

14.24 ± 4.91

0.172

0.207

0.678

mhc_psychological

1st

37

21.76 ± 6.38

36

22.64 ± 6.38

0.556

-0.264

mhc_psychological

2nd

20

22.40 ± 5.57

-0.193

19

21.62 ± 5.54

0.304

0.663

0.233

resilisnce

1st

37

16.32 ± 4.35

36

16.83 ± 4.35

0.618

-0.216

resilisnce

2nd

20

16.48 ± 3.83

-0.068

19

17.38 ± 3.81

-0.234

0.464

-0.382

social_provision

1st

37

13.30 ± 3.00

36

14.03 ± 3.00

0.301

-0.398

social_provision

2nd

20

12.36 ± 2.73

0.511

19

14.00 ± 2.72

0.013

0.062

-0.896

els_value_living

1st

37

16.65 ± 2.91

36

17.89 ± 2.91

0.073

-0.848

els_value_living

2nd

20

16.92 ± 2.52

-0.188

19

17.97 ± 2.51

-0.054

0.197

-0.714

els_life_fulfill

1st

37

11.81 ± 3.09

36

13.75 ± 3.09

0.009

-1.219

els_life_fulfill

2nd

20

12.73 ± 2.69

-0.576

19

13.76 ± 2.67

-0.009

0.230

-0.652

els

1st

37

28.46 ± 5.39

36

31.64 ± 5.39

0.014

-1.273

els

2nd

20

29.63 ± 4.57

-0.467

19

31.74 ± 4.55

-0.040

0.151

-0.846

social_connect

1st

37

27.95 ± 9.53

36

26.33 ± 9.53

0.472

0.438

social_connect

2nd

20

28.70 ± 7.80

-0.206

19

26.15 ± 7.74

0.051

0.307

0.694

shs_agency

1st

37

13.84 ± 4.93

36

15.06 ± 4.93

0.295

-0.484

shs_agency

2nd

20

14.13 ± 4.28

-0.115

19

15.80 ± 4.26

-0.296

0.224

-0.664

shs_pathway

1st

37

16.11 ± 3.94

36

17.00 ± 3.94

0.337

-0.465

shs_pathway

2nd

20

16.48 ± 3.38

-0.194

19

16.98 ± 3.37

0.009

0.643

-0.262

shs

1st

37

29.95 ± 8.37

36

32.06 ± 8.37

0.285

-0.527

shs

2nd

20

30.61 ± 7.15

-0.165

19

32.79 ± 7.11

-0.184

0.341

-0.545

esteem

1st

37

12.86 ± 1.41

36

12.47 ± 1.41

0.237

0.323

esteem

2nd

20

13.02 ± 1.40

-0.126

19

12.80 ± 1.40

-0.273

0.635

0.176

mlq_search

1st

37

14.84 ± 3.37

36

15.03 ± 3.37

0.810

-0.086

mlq_search

2nd

20

14.44 ± 3.13

0.179

19

14.99 ± 3.12

0.016

0.583

-0.249

mlq_presence

1st

37

13.41 ± 4.04

36

13.53 ± 4.04

0.897

-0.051

mlq_presence

2nd

20

13.32 ± 3.65

0.034

19

13.65 ± 3.64

-0.052

0.778

-0.137

mlq

1st

37

28.24 ± 6.71

36

28.56 ± 6.71

0.843

-0.075

mlq

2nd

20

27.77 ± 6.13

0.115

19

28.64 ± 6.11

-0.020

0.657

-0.210

empower

1st

37

19.08 ± 4.00

36

19.92 ± 4.00

0.375

-0.443

empower

2nd

20

18.83 ± 3.41

0.134

19

19.25 ± 3.39

0.353

0.699

-0.224

ismi_resistance

1st

37

14.32 ± 2.50

36

14.89 ± 2.50

0.338

-0.303

ismi_resistance

2nd

20

14.50 ± 2.40

-0.093

19

14.76 ± 2.40

0.070

0.737

-0.139

ismi_discrimation

1st

37

12.22 ± 3.13

36

10.36 ± 3.13

0.013

1.137

ismi_discrimation

2nd

20

11.71 ± 2.73

0.312

19

10.78 ± 2.72

-0.259

0.292

0.566

sss_affective

1st

37

10.43 ± 3.68

36

9.44 ± 3.68

0.255

0.606

sss_affective

2nd

20

10.66 ± 3.09

-0.139

19

8.58 ± 3.08

0.530

0.038

1.275

sss_behavior

1st

37

10.27 ± 3.76

36

8.92 ± 3.76

0.128

0.671

sss_behavior

2nd

20

10.02 ± 3.31

0.123

19

8.19 ± 3.29

0.361

0.086

0.909

sss_cognitive

1st

37

8.59 ± 3.88

36

8.00 ± 3.88

0.515

0.362

sss_cognitive

2nd

20

9.62 ± 3.23

-0.626

19

7.20 ± 3.21

0.487

0.021

1.475

sss

1st

37

29.30 ± 10.53

36

26.36 ± 10.53

0.237

0.701

sss

2nd

20

30.37 ± 8.66

-0.257

19

24.04 ± 8.60

0.555

0.024

1.513

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(100.54) = 0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.59)

2st

t(107.40) = 0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.97)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(97.20) = 0.13, p = 0.896, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.16 to 1.32)

2st

t(107.39) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.64)

ras_confidence

1st

t(82.87) = 0.89, p = 0.373, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.29 to 3.39)

2st

t(107.44) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-1.44 to 4.15)

ras_willingness

1st

t(82.63) = 0.77, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.57 to 1.28)

2st

t(107.35) = 1.49, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.93)

ras_goal

1st

t(85.43) = 0.06, p = 0.955, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.49)

2st

t(107.95) = 1.75, p = 0.083, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-0.21 to 3.34)

ras_reliance

1st

t(80.65) = 0.74, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.75)

2st

t(106.16) = 1.45, p = 0.150, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.57)

ras_domination

1st

t(93.03) = -2.04, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.11 to -0.03)

2st

t(107.60) = 0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.71)

symptom

1st

t(76.98) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-6.60 to 2.55)

2st

t(100.51) = -1.06, p = 0.291, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-7.81 to 2.37)

slof_work

1st

t(77.55) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-2.22 to 2.37)

2st

t(101.82) = -0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.07 to 2.08)

slof_relationship

1st

t(80.95) = 0.31, p = 0.758, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.34 to 3.20)

2st

t(106.41) = 0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.32)

satisfaction

1st

t(84.28) = 1.80, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-0.30 to 6.15)

2st

t(107.81) = 0.88, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-2.18 to 5.62)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(79.68) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.68)

2st

t(105.21) = -0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.28 to 1.80)

mhc_social

1st

t(82.41) = -0.31, p = 0.756, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.04 to 2.22)

2st

t(107.26) = -1.27, p = 0.207, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-5.12 to 1.12)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(82.46) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-2.09 to 3.85)

2st

t(107.28) = -0.44, p = 0.663, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-4.31 to 2.75)

resilisnce

1st

t(83.36) = 0.50, p = 0.618, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.53)

2st

t(107.60) = 0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.53 to 3.33)

social_provision

1st

t(87.19) = 1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.66 to 2.13)

2st

t(108.00) = 1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.09 to 3.37)

els_value_living

1st

t(81.46) = 1.82, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.60)

2st

t(106.75) = 1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(82.07) = 2.68, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -1.22, 95% CI (0.50 to 3.38)

2st

t(107.10) = 1.21, p = 0.230, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.74)

els

1st

t(79.77) = 2.52, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.67 to 5.69)

2st

t(105.31) = 1.45, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.78 to 5.01)

social_connect

1st

t(76.93) = -0.72, p = 0.472, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-6.06 to 2.83)

2st

t(100.40) = -1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.50 to 2.38)

shs_agency

1st

t(81.85) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-1.08 to 3.51)

2st

t(106.98) = 1.22, p = 0.224, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.04 to 4.38)

shs_pathway

1st

t(80.74) = 0.97, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.73)

2st

t(106.24) = 0.46, p = 0.643, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.65)

shs

1st

t(80.43) = 1.08, p = 0.285, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-1.79 to 6.01)

2st

t(105.97) = 0.96, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.35 to 6.71)

esteem

1st

t(103.43) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.26)

2st

t(107.54) = -0.48, p = 0.635, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.68)

mlq_search

1st

t(89.79) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.76)

2st

t(107.86) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.53)

mlq_presence

1st

t(86.48) = 0.13, p = 0.897, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.76 to 2.00)

2st

t(108.00) = 0.28, p = 0.778, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.99 to 2.65)

mlq

1st

t(87.55) = 0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.81 to 3.44)

2st

t(107.99) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.01 to 4.76)

empower

1st

t(80.10) = 0.89, p = 0.375, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.03 to 2.70)

2st

t(105.66) = 0.39, p = 0.699, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.58)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(95.70) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.73)

2st

t(107.44) = 0.34, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.79)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(82.35) = -2.53, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.31 to -0.40)

2st

t(107.23) = -1.06, p = 0.292, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.65 to 0.81)

sss_affective

1st

t(78.95) = -1.15, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.73)

2st

t(104.28) = -2.10, p = 0.038, Cohen d = 1.27, 95% CI (-4.04 to -0.12)

sss_behavior

1st

t(83.07) = -1.54, p = 0.128, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-3.11 to 0.40)

2st

t(107.51) = -1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-3.93 to 0.26)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(78.21) = -0.65, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.21)

2st

t(103.10) = -2.35, p = 0.021, Cohen d = 1.47, 95% CI (-4.47 to -0.38)

sss

1st

t(77.31) = -1.19, p = 0.237, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-7.84 to 1.97)

2st

t(101.30) = -2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = 1.51, 95% CI (-11.82 to -0.85)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(53.08) = 1.16, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.94)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.73) = 0.85, p = 0.800, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.78)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.73) = 0.73, p = 0.934, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.08 to 2.32)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.60) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(44.02) = 1.08, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.76)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.62) = 2.55, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.91)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(48.16) = 1.66, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.78)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.84) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.10 to 1.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.12) = -2.03, p = 0.098, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.58 to -0.01)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.77) = -0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.46)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.43) = -0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.90 to 2.00)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.15) = -1.19, p = 0.482, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.50) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.37)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.52) = -0.96, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-3.14 to 1.11)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.97) = 0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.94 to 2.05)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.93) = -0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.18 to 1.13)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(42.02) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.01)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.33) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.03)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.19) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.70)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.82) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.57 to 2.19)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.22) = 0.94, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.35)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.67) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.21)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.52) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.83 to 3.30)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(55.51) = 0.92, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.06)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.33) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.34)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.56) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.65)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(45.13) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.69)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.35) = -1.11, p = 0.544, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.54)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.77) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.01)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.47) = 0.82, p = 0.831, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.46)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.79) = -1.67, p = 0.206, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.82) = -1.15, p = 0.515, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.01 to 0.55)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.44) = -1.53, p = 0.269, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.86 to 0.26)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(40.00) = -1.74, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.03 to 0.38)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(52.58) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(50.31) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.84)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(42.56) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.97)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(42.44) = -1.96, p = 0.113, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.02)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(43.82) = -1.65, p = 0.212, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.20)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(41.49) = 1.11, p = 0.548, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.28)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(47.82) = -1.34, p = 0.376, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.59 to 0.32)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(39.76) = 0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.34 to 2.46)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(40.03) = -1.17, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.53)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(41.64) = -1.17, p = 0.498, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.87 to 0.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(43.25) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.64 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(41.03) = 0.89, p = 0.755, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.58)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(42.34) = 1.19, p = 0.478, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.91)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(42.36) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.71)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(42.80) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.62)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(44.70) = -1.68, p = 0.200, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.06 to 0.19)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(41.88) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.19)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(42.17) = 1.87, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.90)

els

1st vs 2st

t(41.07) = 1.51, p = 0.278, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.73)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(39.74) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.08)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(42.07) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.27 to 1.85)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(41.54) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.57)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(41.39) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.84 to 3.16)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(54.93) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.86)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(46.05) = -0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.95)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(44.34) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.40)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(44.88) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-3.02 to 2.06)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(41.23) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.93)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(49.38) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.29)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(42.31) = -1.01, p = 0.633, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.50)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(40.69) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.25)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(42.66) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(40.34) = 2.01, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.00 to 2.06)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(39.92) = 0.83, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.56 to 3.71)

Plot

Clinical significance